§12.10.21quapropter milii falli multum videntur, qui solos esse Atticos credunt tenues et lucidos et significantes sed quadam eloquentiae frugalitate contentos ac semper manum intra pallium continentes.
Wherefore they seem to me to be much mistaken, who believe that those alone are Attic who are slender, clear, and expressive, but content with a certain frugality of eloquence, and always keeping their hand inside their cloak.
nam quis erit hic Atticus? sit Lysias;
For who will be this Attic?
hunc enim amplectuntur amatores istius nominis modum.
Let it be Lysias; for the lovers of that name embrace him as their standard.
non igitur iam usque ad Coccum et Andocidem remittemur.
Therefore we shall not be sent back as far as Coccus and Andocides.
interrogare tamen velim, an Isocrates Attice dixerit.
Yet I should like to ask whether Isocrates spoke in the Attic manner.
§12.10.22nihil enim tam est Lysiae diversum.
For nothing is so different from Lysias.
negabunt.
They will say no.
At eius schola principes oratorum dedit.
Yet his school gave the foremost of orators.
quaeratur similius aliquid.
Let something more similar be sought.
Hyperides Atticus? certe, at plus indulsit voluptati.
Is Hyperides Attic? Certainly, but he indulged more in pleasure.
transeo plurimos, Lycurgum, Aristogitona et his priores Isaeum, Antiphonta; quos ut homines inter se genere similes, differentes dixeris specie.
I pass over many, Lycurgus, Aristogiton, and prior to these, Isaeus, Antiphon; whom you might call similar to one another in genus, but different in species.
quid ille, cuius modo fecimus mentionem, Aeschines?
What of him whom we just mentioned, Aeschines?
§12.10.23nonne his latior et audentior et excelsior? quid denique Demosthenes? non cunctos illos tenues et circumspectos vi, sublimitate, impetu, cultu, conpositione superavit? non insurgit locis? non figuris gaudet? non translationibus nitet? non oratione ficta dat tacentibus vocem?
Is he not broader and bolder and loftier than these? What, finally, of Demosthenes? Did he not surpass all those slender and cautious orators in force, sublimity, impulse, ornament, and composition? Does he not rise in particular passages? Does he not rejoice in figures? Does he not shine in metaphors? Does he not, by personification, give a voice to the silent?
§12.10.24non illud iusiurandum per caesos in Marathone ac Salamine propugnatores rei publicae satis manifesto docet praeceptorem eius Platonem fuisse? quem ipsum num Asianum appellabimus plerumque instinctis divino spiritu vatibus comparandum? quid Periclea? similemne credemus Lysiacae gracilitati, quem fulminibus et caelesti fragori comparant comici, dum illi conviciantur? quid est igitur,
Does not that famous oath by the defenders of the state slain at Marathon and Salamis show clearly enough that his teacher was Plato? Shall we call Plato himself 'Asian'—he who is for the most part to be compared to prophets inspired by a divine spirit? What of Pericles? Shall we believe him to be similar to Lysian slenderness, whom the comic poets compare to thunderbolts and heavenly crash while they abuse him?
§12.10.25cur in iis demum, qui tenui venula per calculos fluunt, Atticum saporem putent, ibi demum thymum redolere dicant? quos ego existimo, si quod in iis finibus uberius invenerint solum fertilioremve segetem, negaturos Atticam esse, quod plus, quam acceperit, seminis reddat, quia hanc eius terrae fidem Menander eludit.
What is the reason, then, why they should think that the Attic flavor resides only in those who flow with a thin vein through pebbles, and say that there alone the thyme smells sweet? Whom I think, if they find any soil more fertile or a more abundant crop in those territories, they will deny it is Attic, because it returns more seed than it received, since Menander mocks this trustworthiness of that land.
§12.10.26ita nunc, si quis ad eas Demosthenis virtutes, quas ille summus orator habuit, tamen quae defuisse ei sive ipsius natura seu lege civitatis videntur, adiecerit, ut adfectus concitatius moveat, audiam dicentem, non fecit hoc Demosthenes? et si quid numeris exierit aptius (fortasse non possit, sed tamen si quid exierit) non erit Atticum? melius de hoc nomine sentiant credantque Attice dicere esse optime dicere.
So now, if anyone should add to those virtues of Demosthenes, which that greatest orator possessed, those things which nevertheless seem to have been lacking to him either by his own nature or by the law of the state, shall I listen to one saying 'Demosthenes did not do this'? And if anything should come out more suited to rhythms (perhaps it is not possible, but yet if anything should come out), will it not be Attic? Let them think better of this name, and believe that to speak in the Attic manner is to speak in the best manner.
§12.10.27atque in hac tamen opinione perseverantes Graecos magis tulerim.
And yet I could more easily tolerate the Greeks persisting in this opinion.
Latina mihi facundia, ut inventione, dispositione, consilio, ceteris huius generis artibus similis Graecae ac prorsus discipula eius videtur, ita circa rationem eloquendi vix habere imitationis locum.
Latin eloquence, just as it seems to me similar to Greek in invention, disposition, judgment, and other arts of this kind, and indeed its pupil, so in what concerns the method of expression, it seems to have scarcely any room for imitation.
namque est ipsis statim sonis durior, quando et iucundissimas ex Graecis litteras non habemus, vocalem alteram, alteram consonantem, quibus nullae apud eos dulcius spirant; quas mutuari solemus, quotiens illorum nominibus utimur.
For it is immediately harsher in its very sounds, since we do not have two of the most pleasant letters from the Greek, one a vowel, the other a consonant, than which none breathe more sweetly among them, and which we are accustomed to borrow whenever we use their names.
§12.10.28quod cum contingit, nescio quomodo hilarior protinus renidet oratio, ut in Zephyris et zopyris.
When this happens, somehow the speech immediately smiles more cheerfully, as in 'Zephyri' and 'Zopyri'.
quae si nostris litteris scribantur, surdum quiddam et barbarum efficient, et velut in locum earum succedunt tristes et horridae, quibus Graecia caret.
Which, if they should be written in our letters, will produce a dull and barbarous sound, and as if into their place succeed gloomy and harsh letters, which Greece lacks.
§12.10.29nam et illa, quae est sexta nostrarum, paene non humana voce vel omnino non voce potius inter discrimina dentium efflanda est; quae, etiam cum vocalem proxima accipit, quassa quodammodo, utique quotiens aliquam consonantium frangit, it in hoc ipso frangit, multo fit horridior.
For even that letter, which is the sixth of ours, must be blown out between the gaps of the teeth with an almost non-human voice, or rather with no voice at all; which, even when it receives a vowel next to it, is somewhat shattered, and especially whenever it clashes with some consonant, as in this very word 'frangit', becomes much harsher.
Aeolicae quoque litterae, qua servum ceruumque dicimus, etiamsi forma a nobis repudiata est, vis tamen nos ipsa persequitur.
Also the power of the Aeolic letter, by which we say 'servum' and 'cervum', even if its form has been rejected by us, nevertheless still pursues us.